JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the appellate judgment dated 14.1.99 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali whereby he, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A and 279 IPC maintained the sentence of one month S.l. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 279 IPC and six months R.l. and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 304-A IPC. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 22.1.92 deceased Lala (45 years) was going on a cycle. It is alleged that the accused petitioner while driving Truck RJ-19 6294 rashly and negligently hit the cyclist causing his death. Mahendra Singh, F.C. 519 who was on patrol duty was eye-witness to the occurrence. He lodged a report, on which a case under Section 304-A and 279 IPC was registered. Accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Dr. K.N. Mathur, P.W. 2 Ummed Singh, P.W. 3 Gopal Singh, P.W. 4 Ismail Khan, P.W. 5 Mahendra Singh and P.W. 6 Hamir Singh. Accused petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied accusation. He did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Magistrate after hearing ' the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused held that by the evidence produced in the case the charges are fully established against the accused. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him. The appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. Mr. Garg, contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the petitioner was driving the truck rashly or negligently and the accident had occurred because of his fault. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Garg. Mahendra Singh, P.W. 5 who was on patrol duty deposes that the cyclist was going ahead of him and he had seen the truck coming from opposite direction at excessive speed and hitting the cyclist. He further says that the accused was on the steering of the truck. There could not be any cause for Mahendra Singh to depose falsely against the accused. There is nothing in the cross examination of Mahendra Singh as to disbelieve him. It has not been suggested that he had some cause to depose against the petitioner. 4. The testimony of Mahendra Singh cannot be disbelieved simply on the ground that he is a police official. There is nothing in the cross examination of Mahendra Singh as to disbelieve him. It has not been suggested that he had some cause to depose against the petitioner. 4. The testimony of Mahendra Singh cannot be disbelieved simply on the ground that he is a police official. In his cross-examination it has not been suggested that he was not on duty on that day or that he has given false statement. His testimony also cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he has not disclosed the direction of the truck and the cyclist. Once the witness gave statement that the cyclist was hit by the truck coming from opposite direction which was being driven rashly and negligently it was for the accused to have cross-examined him on the point. The accused did not ask any question regarding the direction of the movement of the deceased or of the truck. In his cross-examination Mahendra Singh clearly says that the front left portion of the truck had hit the cyclist. By the evidence of Mahendra Singh, it is fully established that the petitioner was driving the truck rashly and negligently and by his act the death of Lala was caused. The trial court has not erred when it convicted the accused in the case. The Appellate Court has rightly upheld his conviction. 5. The next contention of Mr. Garg, is that the accident had taken place 17 years back and the petitioner has suffered a lot during this period. Pointing out that the petitioner is in custody for about the month he submits that this should be considered sufficient sentence looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this request of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279 and 304-A IPC the sentence of imprisonment under both the counts is reduced to the period already undergone by him. On depositing the fine, the petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Revision Partly Allowed. *******